Scan barcode
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
I didn't pick this up expecting an argument to entirely shift the paradigm of why the constitution came about, and what the framers were trying to accomplish, but that's what I got. I just ran into this title somewhere and thought I had never read much about the period between when the Revolutionary War ended and when the constitution was ratified.
I think the most convincing and engaging part of the book is in his analysis of how the framers combined what they wanted in the document with slick ways to make it palatable to Joe Yankee Doodle - we don't need to say the federal judicial system can strike down state laws, we just need to say federal law is higher than state law, and let John Marshall spell it out later in Marbury versus Madison. We don't need to point out that the members of the House of Representatives will only be in Washington part time, while the senate is there most of the time; it's just understood. And we don't need to say that we're trying to keep representatives from having to cater to every constituent's whim, we'll just increase the number of constituents until there is a leveling effect that only the most urban, dense districts could organize citizens well enough to overcome.
And money. So much of the constitution had to solve the problem of how badly the individual states had messed up monetary policy. You couldn't borrow a nickel in the 1780's because real money was so scarce and states were too happy to print up worthless paper.
Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties? That's aftermarket bells and whistles to get America to buy the car. Want to sort of slip in the fact that we intend to have the feds assume all state debt from the war? Put in some boring boilerplate sounding language, call it Article VI, and maybe nobody will notice.
These guys knew how to take an excess of democracy away from populists, and sell something that could fix the economic mess of the 1780's and by the way make a Republic that would last.
I think the most convincing and engaging part of the book is in his analysis of how the framers combined what they wanted in the document with slick ways to make it palatable to Joe Yankee Doodle - we don't need to say the federal judicial system can strike down state laws, we just need to say federal law is higher than state law, and let John Marshall spell it out later in Marbury versus Madison. We don't need to point out that the members of the House of Representatives will only be in Washington part time, while the senate is there most of the time; it's just understood. And we don't need to say that we're trying to keep representatives from having to cater to every constituent's whim, we'll just increase the number of constituents until there is a leveling effect that only the most urban, dense districts could organize citizens well enough to overcome.
And money. So much of the constitution had to solve the problem of how badly the individual states had messed up monetary policy. You couldn't borrow a nickel in the 1780's because real money was so scarce and states were too happy to print up worthless paper.
Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties? That's aftermarket bells and whistles to get America to buy the car. Want to sort of slip in the fact that we intend to have the feds assume all state debt from the war? Put in some boring boilerplate sounding language, call it Article VI, and maybe nobody will notice.
These guys knew how to take an excess of democracy away from populists, and sell something that could fix the economic mess of the 1780's and by the way make a Republic that would last.
jstamper2022's review
3.0
Spent last night and most of today slogging through this. It reads like he had a page minimum but only enough material for half it. Tons of fluff and repetition of his points. Basically, the framers didn't want The People to have too much democracy. They wanted to limit their power and the power of the states so they could create an economic system that benefited the heavily indebted federal government and the ruling elite. Reads like a research thesis with fluff.
socraticgadfly's review
5.0
Excellent demythologizing of Philadelphia 1787
This is an excellent, well-needed revisionist history of the creation of the Constitution.
While author Woody Holton doesn't go as far as Charles Beard in 1913 and call the Founding Fathers "economic royalists," he does clearly state (and demonstrate with plenty of evidence) that economic issues, and for one class of people, were probably the ultimately concern that led to the Constitutional Convention.
You've maybe heard of Shays' Rebellion in 1786 Massachusetts? Just one of many, many actions in most colonies at the local and regional level. States jacked taxes so high they were four times as high, per capita, as at Revolution 1775. And, most states' legislatures wouldn't print enough cheap paper money to appease farmers and other debtors, who, if not actually marching on state capitals, worked overtime to prevent sheriff's and county courts from selling off properties at debtors' auctions.
In other words, Holton presents the 1780s as William Jennings Bryan's 1896 America writ even larger. And, the Federalist founders as anti-Democrats worried about a debtors' revolt.
Time after time, Holton states the founders saw Article I, Section 10, which prevents states from printing paper money, as a keystone of the new constitution.
As far as mechanisms of government, he re-presents words of numerous Founders indicating their fear of true democracy, in part because they were worried debtors would continue to press governments for cheap money. That's why they cut the actual number of members in the first House in half, to 65, from Madison's original proposal of 130. They thought that the well-to-do could better control politics the larger the population represented by each Congressman. That's also why they didn't mandate single-member districts (read the Constitution, it's not in there), allowing statewide elections.
"Insure democratic tranquility"? Against mob action.
"Promote justice"? Against debtors wanting cheap money.
And, contrary to Publishers' Weekly, Holton does NOT call the Constitution a "democratic document."
Page 273: "The Framers designed the Federal government to be much less accessible than it seems."
This is an excellent, well-needed revisionist history of the creation of the Constitution.
While author Woody Holton doesn't go as far as Charles Beard in 1913 and call the Founding Fathers "economic royalists," he does clearly state (and demonstrate with plenty of evidence) that economic issues, and for one class of people, were probably the ultimately concern that led to the Constitutional Convention.
You've maybe heard of Shays' Rebellion in 1786 Massachusetts? Just one of many, many actions in most colonies at the local and regional level. States jacked taxes so high they were four times as high, per capita, as at Revolution 1775. And, most states' legislatures wouldn't print enough cheap paper money to appease farmers and other debtors, who, if not actually marching on state capitals, worked overtime to prevent sheriff's and county courts from selling off properties at debtors' auctions.
In other words, Holton presents the 1780s as William Jennings Bryan's 1896 America writ even larger. And, the Federalist founders as anti-Democrats worried about a debtors' revolt.
Time after time, Holton states the founders saw Article I, Section 10, which prevents states from printing paper money, as a keystone of the new constitution.
As far as mechanisms of government, he re-presents words of numerous Founders indicating their fear of true democracy, in part because they were worried debtors would continue to press governments for cheap money. That's why they cut the actual number of members in the first House in half, to 65, from Madison's original proposal of 130. They thought that the well-to-do could better control politics the larger the population represented by each Congressman. That's also why they didn't mandate single-member districts (read the Constitution, it's not in there), allowing statewide elections.
"Insure democratic tranquility"? Against mob action.
"Promote justice"? Against debtors wanting cheap money.
And, contrary to Publishers' Weekly, Holton does NOT call the Constitution a "democratic document."
Page 273: "The Framers designed the Federal government to be much less accessible than it seems."
theartolater's review against another edition
2.0
“Hey, I have an idea, I’ll write a 200+ page history of the Constitution using only debt and money as the basis.” Maybe the whole Ron Paul thing has really made me overly sensitive to money policy lately, but this got very tiring very quickly. An interesting premise that would have worked better in a compilation of ideas around the Constitution rather than a full-length work.
sgtbigg's review
4.0
Holton gives a different version of the origins of the U.S. Constitution. Arguing that the Framers were unhappy with the excesses of democracy in Confederation America. The Constitution was an effort to rein in democracy, take power from the states (and the people) and put it in the hands of the national government. There were also financial incentives, Holton, while claiming that Beard may have overstated the case, notes that many of the men at the Constitutional Convention stood to make many if the Constitution was ratified. An interesting alternative look at the origins of the Constitution and the nation.
gannent's review
2.0
The author sets out to challenge our perceptions of the motivations of the Framers and the reasons behind the Constitution. He proposes that if it were not for ordinary citizens, that is, "Unruly Americans", the Constitution would not have half of the provisions that we hold dear. The great majority of the book is spent discussing the events and situation leading up to the Constitutional Convention. Not much is spent on the convention itself, ratification, or the aftermath. So the book is very economics-heavy, this was a little difficult for me since I'm not very familiar with economics. The focus was on debtors vs. creditors, and bondholders vs. taxpayers. There was a lot of discussion on monetary policy, were the Framers correct in thinking that the Constitution was the best was to help the economy, or would people have been better off with emissions of paper money like many demanded? Personally, I feel like this is the sort of book that requires a lot of thought and attention, not one that can be easily skimmed unless you're already very familiar with economics and this time period in history.
More...